A “dieback” [in the Amazon forests] would directly hurt the seven other countries with which Brazil shares the river basin. It would reduce the moisture channelled along the Andes as far south as Buenos Aires. If Brazil were damming a real river, not choking off an aerial one, downstream nations could consider it an act of war.How could they consider it an act of war if they don't understand the crucial importance of the massive moisture streams called flying rivers that arise from the Amazon forests?
Indeed, I'm surprised The Economist mentioned the phenomenon because its editorial policy is hyperfocused on CO2 emissions. Once you start talking about flying rivers, this is getting near an explanation of climate that is barely discussed in mainstream climate science.
But rather than excoriate Jair Bolonsaro for his dismissal of global warming and refusal to rein in the massive deforestation of the Amazon ("Since he took office in January, trees have been disappearing at a rate of over two Manhattans a week."), those governments and news publications trying to talk sense into him might themselves start talking sense about just what makes and governs climate. It ain't carbon dioxide.
********
No comments:
Post a Comment